SSPX Proselytism

[latinmasslover]

I beg your pardon but is that an order?

Ask the pope.

 

[bear06]

I think you’re confusing “SSPXers” with sedevacantists.

The problem is that it can be sooooo easy to do this.

 

[catharina]

Sorry, but you’re never free to ignore the truth, no matter who it comes from.

The Church has declared M. Lefebvre to be excommunicated by his own actions. That is no matter for debate. I live in a very Holy Church. People are flawed and still remain within the Church. The Church is not flawed. It is the spotless Bride of Christ. M. Lefebvre elimnated himself as a worthy teacher of the faith. It’s over.

 

[latinmasslover]

The Church has declared M. Lefebvre to be excommunicated by his own actions. That is no matter for debate. I live in a very Holy Church. People are flawed and still remain within the Church. The Church is not flawed. It is the spotless Bride of Christ. M. Lefebvre elimnated himself as a worthy teacher of the faith. It’s over.

You’re still not free to deny the truth.

 

[bear06]

Meaning? To obey/follow the example of a pope isn’t always pleasing to God or beneficial to the soul. The truth doesn’t change, and adhering to the truth is what counts in the eyes of God, hence He told us we’re to worship in spirit and truth.

And you’ve made an important distiction with the use of this word.

 

[catharina]

I side with 2000 years of the Church, the Saints of Heaven, the Holy Scriptures. You seem to place your lot with the fallible statements of the Popes of the last 40 years, who chose not to heed the warning of their predecessors. They dug their own grave, so to speak.

And stop making it an issue of my word vs. the Church. That is the argument people use when they have nothing left, and I’m sure that’s not the case here.

So then you see yourself as qualified to give orders: " … stop making it an issue of my word vs the Church" and yet that is the issue. If you’re fully aligned with those who see no reality in the existence of the Holy Father or his predecessors, then I guess you feel free to give orders in his stead. Thanks for clarifying. I’m not too surprised.

 

[catharina]

You’re still not free to deny the truth.

Quite correct and the truth is that M. Lefebvre and his bishops were/are excommunicated.

 

[latinmasslover]

Quite correct and the truth is that M. Lefebvre and his bishops were/are excommunicated.

So what. That doesn’t mean every word they say is not true.

 

[catharina]

So what. That doesn’t mean every word they say is not true.

As I’ve already said: “The Church is not flawed. It is the spotless Bride of Christ. M. Lefebvre elimnated himself as a worthy teacher of the faith. It’s over.”

 

[latinmasslover]

So then you see yourself as qualified to give orders: " … stop making it an issue of my word vs the Church" and yet that is the issue.

Please get over that already, you’re expressing quite a bit of personal pride.

If you’re fully aligned with those who see no reality in the existence of the Holy Father or his predecessors, then I guess you feel free to give orders in his stead. Thanks for clarifying. I’m not too surprised.

There goes that presumption again.
What do you mean by “fully aligned?” I do not make every word of the Archbishop Gospel, he is not right about everything. Oh well, nobody is, not even the Pope.

 

[latinmasslover]

As I’ve already said: “The Church is not flawed. It is the spotless Bride of Christ. M. Lefebvre elimnated himself as a worthy teacher of the faith. It’s over.”

Again, that doesn’t mean that everything he says is untrue. You have no right to throw out *any *truth just because *he *says it.

 

[bear06]

You seem to be confusing the Pope with the Church. The maxim is “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” It’s not “Who Peter is, is the Church.”

So Gerard, what exactly do you think this means?!!! When the Pope is in Germany so is the Church? When the Pope is in the U.S. so is the Church? It’s rather ironic that this quote was chosen since it deals with the unity of the Church.

 

[catharina]

Again, that doesn’t mean that everything he says is untrue. You have no right to throw out *any *truth just because *he *says it.

Thank you for judging me as personally prideful - twice so far. That must mean you are the soul of humility. If so, please consider yourself free to ignore every utterance of M. Lefebvre. He lived in the state of excommunication for years prior to his death. The Church need not ever parse his teachings since in the end (such an important moment, “the end”), he chose to die as an excommunicant. If he found salvation as a result of God’s mercy and his own repentence, then blessed be God. If he didn’t, then blessed be God. In the end, blessed be God, not blessed be M. Lefebvre. I have every right to ignore any and every word of M. Lefebvre unless and until the Church says otherwise. So do all Catholics.

 

[bear06]

What about the suble ugliness of Catholics denying the teaching of the Catholic Church in favor or false teachings about obedience,

Are these quotes false teachings on obedience?

From Francis de Sales"Obedience lovingly undertakes to do ail that is commanded it with simplicity and without ever considering whether the command is good or bad, provided that the person who orders has authority to order, and that the command serves to unite our mind to God." (Spiritual Conferences, XI, p 179)

He adds that if a superior orders what is evidently against the law of God, it is one’s duty not to submit. Aside from this last case, however, the truly obedient person does not go astray even when the superior is wrong and commands what is less good than what we ourselves would choose. Then God, to whom the submission is given and who sees the heart, rewards this obedience by assuring success. Again, St. Francis de Sales, commenting upon the “the obedient man shall speak of victory,” says:

“The truly obedient man will come out the conqueror in all the difficulties into which he may be led by obedience, and with honor from all the roads he has traversed, however dangerous.” (Ibid, p. 199).

In other words, a superior may err in commanding but we make no mistake in obeying, a conclusion which emerges just as clearly from the following statement of Pope Leo XIII:

“The only reason which men can have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or Divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated.” (Diuturnum Illud [1881], Denz. 1857).

All the detailed treatments on the virtue of obedience and its application to laws and commands of lawful authority, for example those of Suarez and of St. Robert Bellarmine, are to the same effect.

For completeness it should be added that even if one is in doubt as to whether obedience to the command is or is not sinful, one is obliged to obey, because the presumption is in favor of the superior. This also applies when compliance with a command appears to be probably sinful. Only when definite sin is involved is one entitled, and obliged, to disobey. The clear teaching of the Church on this point is summed up by St. Ignatius Loyola:

“When, in my opinion and judgment, the Superior bids me to do something which is against my conscience or sinful, and the Superior thinks the contrary, I ought to believe him unless he is manifestly wrong.” (Monumenta Ignatian, series 1a, XII, 660).

The only position for a loyal Catholic to adopt, when faced with the true Catholic position on primacy and obedience set out above, is to accept John Paul II and the bishops in communion with him as our lawful pastors and obey them in all that is not sinful. Obedience and loyalty to Peter is the authentic Catholic attitude. This does not mean that one has to go along with abuses. One can quite properly oppose, for example, the use, in contravention of the necessary conditions for such use, of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, since this would be a breach of Rome’s instructions, which are those of a higher authority. Similarly, one may petition, say, for a wider application by the bishops of those provisions of the pope’s Apostolic Letter. Ecclesia Dei, concerning the use of the Tridentine Mass, in accordance with the pope’s wishes. But, if a command is given by the supreme authority, then one must obey, except in the narrow circumstances discussed earlier. This is the only way to maintain tradition since it is the only attitude in line with tradition.

What cannot be justified, in the light of what has been stated above, is the position of the Society of St. Pius X, which insists in public that John Paul II is pope, but then decides for itself when to obey him, using its own reading and personal ideas to justify what it claims that tradition demands. However eminent the authorities relied on, such a process is essentially one of private judgment and, not surprisingly, leads to a corresponding variety of answers. The similarity to movements such as Protestantism and Jansenism is striking. To such people it is the individual who decides. not the Church. As a result, one is left to decide issues which one has neither authority nor competence to decide. What gives an individual the authority to decide that a rite of Mass is doubtful or invalid or the right to decide whether an excommunication is valid? As to competence the vast majority of such people are not canonists, theologians, or liturgists. Even those who are, notoriously disagree. There are dozens of positions: Lefebvre, de Nantes, Des Lauriers, Ngo Dinh Thuc, etc. It is not enough to say “I will read and study.” Seeking to find the path to God by mere knowledge, without receiving the grace that comes from living in sacramental union with the Church can all too easily lead one out of the Church as in the case of Jansenism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is for the living Church to show us the truth, not for us to tell the Church where the truth lies. Because we have no competence and no authority to judge these matters, we cannot be sure to arrive at the truth by studying them.

So in light of these quotes, you’ve (or the SSPX) got to be making the argument that the Pope is ordering the faithful to do something sinful or you really don’t have an argument. Which is it?

 

[jmcrae]

Again, that doesn’t mean that everything he says is untrue. You have no right to throw out *any *truth just because *he *says it.

We are not allowed to listen to the teachings of schismatics.

 

[catharina]

bear06, re your post, Post # 74, thank you.

 

[latinmasslover]

Thank you for judging me as personally prideful - twice so far. That must mean you are the soul of humility.

I call it like I see it, if it wasn’t expressed, I wouldn’t have said anything. If I was wrong, I was wrong and I apologize.

If so, please consider yourself free to ignore every utterance of M. Lefebvre. He lived in the state of excommunication for years prior to his death. The Church need not ever parse his teachings since in the end (such an important moment, “the end”), he chose to die as an excommunicant. If he found salvation as a result of God’s mercy and his own repentence, then blessed be God. If he didn’t, then blessed be God. In the end, blessed be God, not blessed be M. Lefebvre. I have every right to ignore any and every word of M. Lefebvre unless and until the Church says otherwise. So do all Catholics.

You stated:
If/when the Church teaches new facts regarding “bad Popes” as it has done in Church history in the past, then I’ll pay attention. When an excommunicated archbishop teaches about “bad Popes,” then I am free to ignore him. (In fact, I am bound to ignore him.)

You misread, or I was unclear, but the above statements were what I was specifically referring to. You said you can ignore the truth about bad popes simply because it was Archbishop Lefebvre who pointed it out. This was what I disagreed with.

 

[ProVobis]

“And after private and public warnings the Archbishop went ahead with the consecrations.”

Wasn’t one of the consecrations approved by Rome? Why did that bishop get excommunicated too? Something doesn’t add up.

 

[catharina]

We are not allowed to listen to the teachings of schismatics.

… and jmcrae, thank you too.

 

[latinmasslover]

We are not allowed to listen to the teachings of schismatics.

So don’t listen to schismatics. What I’m saying is that a truth cannot be denied *simply because *that person is a heretic, or schismatic, or heathen, or whatever. That mentality is most definitely not encouraged by the Second Vatican Council.